Comparison of peer, self, and faculty objective structured clinical examination evaluations in a PharmD nonprescription therapeutics course.

Purpose: Objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) are a valuable assessment within healthcare education, as they provide the opportunity for students to demonstrate clinical competency, but can be resource intensive to provide faculty graders. The purpose of this study was to determine how overall OSCE scores compared between faculty, peer, and self-evaluations within a Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD) curriculum.
Methods: This study was conducted during the required nonprescription therapeutics course. Seventy-seven first-year PharmD students were included in the study, with 6 faculty members grading 10-15 students each. Students were evaluated by 3 graders: self, peer, and faculty. All evaluators utilized the same rubric. The primary endpoint of the study was to compare the overall scores between groups. Secondary endpoints included interrater reliability and quantification of feedback type based on the evaluator group.
Results: The maximum possible score for the OSCE was 50 points; the mean scores for self, peer, and faculty evaluations were 43.3, 43.5, and 41.7 points, respectively. No statistically significant difference was found between the self and peer raters. However, statistical significance was found in the comparison of self versus faculty (p = 0.005) and in peer versus faculty (p < 0.001). When these scores were correlated to a letter grade (A, B, C or less), higher grades had greater similarity among raters compared to lower scores. Despite differences in scoring, the interrater reliability, or W score, on overall letter grade was 0.79, which is considered strong agreement.
Conclusions: This study successfully demonstrated how peer and self-evaluation of an OSCE provides a comparable alternative to traditional faculty grading, especially in higher performing students. However, due to differences in overall grades, this strategy should be reserved for low-stakes assessments and basic skill evaluations.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest We declare no conflicts of interest or financial interests that the authors or members of their immediate families have in any product or service discussed in the manuscript, including grants (pending or received), employment, gifts, stock holdings or options, honoraria, consultancies, expert testimony, patents, and royalties.
(Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)